Rand Paul Rejects Judicial Restraint, Says 'I'm a Judicial Activist'

[philipped]

I agree that at times I wonder what he's thinking in terms of trying to win over and keep certain elements of the conservative block and then see many of their reactions on twitter or wherever. It's getting down to he old, "I like Rand on this and that issue but here is where he loses me" routine of the past.

I have to unfortunately agree and cosign to seeing doubt via Twitter as well.

[philipped]

Kinda dangerous, Rand asking his listeners to actually think, and in a considered and nuanced way.

Biggest takeaway from watching the whole speech.

[specsaregood]

Unfortunately, there's as many conservative 'tough guys' that merely read headlines and then immediately make an uninformed decision that Rand is some liberal republican in the bad sense of the term as there are liberal drones that eat up anything Obama and co has to offer.

yeah I get that I was just venting. we have plenty of those types even around rpfs. its funny because at the beginning of his speech Randal made a joke about how demint told him all this content would be off the record as nobody from the media would dare come to the event. or something along those lines.

[Brian4Liberty]

The conservatives in the crowd at the Heritage Foundation event he spoke at as well as DeMint seemed to understand him perfectly well. Maybe conservatives should read beyond headlines.

Don't worry. Hannity will explain it to "conservatives".

[William Tell]

Kevin Gutzman did that on Facebook and renounced his support for Rand over this, lol.

He's the sort of guy who would be nice to have on Rand's side.

It would be really cool if Rand would stop confusing conservatives as to what he supports and what his intentions are. He has serious communication issues.

That would be immensely cool.

Unfortunately, there's as many conservative 'tough guys' that merely read headlines and then immediately make an uninformed decision that Rand is some liberal republican in the bad sense of the term as there are liberal drones that eat up anything Obama and co has to offer. This simpleton factor is pervasive across all elements of the so-called anti-establishment right and this is why these types are easily controlled and led astray. Paint me in the corner of not having Rand go down the professorial route that Ron took and just speak to the level of his audience and handle the real deep seated (out in the weeds) positions under the radar when he becomes president. Education works up until a point where the propagandists can retool the script and send it back in your face all the while, confusing or sowing doubt in the simpletons' minds. I agree that at times I wonder what he's thinking in terms of trying to win over and keep certain elements of the conservative block and then see many of their reactions on twitter or wherever. It's getting down to he old, "I like Rand on this and that issue but here is where he loses me" routine of the past.

Well said.

I have to unfortunately agree and cosign to seeing doubt via Twitter as well.

Yes.

[William Tell]

And he is my choice for Rand's first SCOTUS appointment.

And he was defending Rand only 2 weeks ago.
https://www.mikechurch.com/transcrip...y-association/

[cajuncocoa]

The sarcasm I detect implies you disagree with the content of his message. Which part exactly?

Not at all.

[TaftFan]

The conservatives in the crowd at the Heritage Foundation event he spoke at as well as DeMint seemed to understand him perfectly well. Maybe conservatives should read beyond headlines.

They should. But nuance is not commonly understood in politics. (Although, I agree with Gutzman on this issue, not Rand.)

But there is stuff Rand has done to hurt himself that he never should have done. Taking a picture with Sharpton (that backfired even more than I predicted thanks to the NYC shootings), failing to articulate an understandable position in immigration reform, having three different positions on Ukraine, stepping into unnecessary voter ID waters, endorsing several establishment candidates, supporting the Cruz/Lee shut down but calling it a bad idea, excessive nuance on marriage and foreign aid, it goes on and on...

His problem is that he feels the need to weigh in on every issue and ends up back-peddling later more often than not.

Well, that is a problem all libertarians have in trying to communicate to conservatives. Rand is basically an a across the board libertarian in the Reason Magazine/Milton Friedman/John Stossel mold, with a few exceptions. I think he does an outstanding job, but that is probably because I read the same things as him and agree with him. Do you want him to be something he is not? Or are you just bringing it up to point out a challenge he faces?

He ran as Jim DeMint/Ron Paul mesh Republican. Now he is something unique. He is often not consistent in positions or not consistent in messaging, and that leads to distrust and opposition.

The more this continues, the more he establishes a reputation as a flip-flopping politician interested in the presidency. He was supposed to be a principled citizen-statesman interested in fighting DC.

[Rudeman]

I think it's a risky position to take but maybe he's hoping his opposition calls him out on it (instead of other attacks) to explain it further?

[specsaregood]

The more this continues, the more he establishes a reputation as a flip-flopping politician interested in the presidency. He was supposed to be a principled citizen-statesman interested in fighting DC.

And yet polls still show him having the highest or close to highest net favorability rating of all the "known" possible candidates in the 2016 race.

[Southron]

WHAT IS THE POSITION OF JUDICIAL RESTRAINT? IT SAYS LET THE STATES DO WHATEVER THEY WANT? IS THAT THE CONSERVATIVE POSITION? I THINK IT'S NOT MY POSITION. I THINK IF THE STATES DO WRONG, THAT WE SHOULD OVERTURN THEM. THAT THERE IS A ROLE FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO METE OUT JUSTICE. THE 14th AMENDMENT GIVES THE SUPREME COURT, IT GIVES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT A ROLE IN SAYING THE STATES CAN'T DO CERTAIN THINGS.

Disturbing.

Edit. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I just assumed he agreed with Ron but I did a little research. Apparently, Rand has always differed from Ron on the meaning of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.

[specsaregood]

I think it's a risky position to take but maybe he's hoping his opposition calls him out on it (instead of other attacks) to explain it further?

I'd wager that is exactly it. This is usually what happens: Randal says something that taken out of context gets people riled up and his opponents immediately attack with sound bites. then Randal gets invited onto media appearances to explain his position further and people without a hardcore agenda dig into his statements further and write articles and commentary defending his position. it keeps him in the spotlight and he's got a talent for it.

[Krugminator2]

T

He ran as Jim DeMint/Ron Paul mesh Republican. Now he is something unique. He is often not consistent in positions or not consistent in messaging, and that leads to distrust and opposition.

The more this continues, the more he establishes a reputation as a flip-flopping politician interested in the presidency. He was supposed to be a principled citizen-statesman interested in fighting DC.

He takes detailed positions. That is something unique to him, which opens him up to criticism. You used the foreign aid example. His position is the same as it has always been. He is in favor of eliminating all foreign aid. He says that even now, even to Israel. He acknowledges that that view has 1 vote in Senate. Realizing he needs to do something different to advance that cause, he says he is fine phasing foreign aid out, starting with countries who are hostile to American values. That isn't a flip flop.

Actually, Rand Paul ran primarily an economic campaign on reducing the size of government. There has been nobody as resolute as him in that regard.

[jmdrake]

@Jmdrake- I'd say its dangerous because, even if we don't care about the constitutionality as such (in other words, even if we accept on principle that its OK to ignore the constitution when doing so promotes libertarian ideals) it remains the case that the vast majority of "activism" is oriented towards increasing the power of the Feds and reducing liberty. And the VAST majority of bad federal legislation could be repealed WITHOUT activism, simply because its unconstitutional.

Huh? How is striking down unconstitutional laws unconstitutional? And sorry, but you cannot repeal federal legislation without the judiciary on mere unconstitutional grounds. That's a pipe dream. You can repeal laws regardless of whether or not they are constitutional if there is massive political will, as in a majority in the house and > 2/3rds majority in the senate.

Tell me this. Do you think Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal) should not have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court should have just sat on its hands and said "Stari Decisis. We can't say whether it's constitutional or not. Let's just leave it up to congress."

I suppose I still have a bit of conservative in me but, I don't want Federal courts striking down even anti-liberty state laws because it sets a precedent. The more localized these decisions are, the better, because it leaves American citizens with more options regarding where to live. Ground up.

So you are against the U.S. Supreme Court striking down Obamacare because that set's a bad precedent? Or are you only against the Supreme Court striking down state laws? I don't think you have thought this through. Both striking down state laws and striking down federal laws counts as a form of "judicial activism." That said, the original constitution had this to say regarding the states.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,

Even before the incorporation doctrine, there was wording in the constitution putting some limit on states rights. I'm for states rights and all, but there has always been a limit.

[Crashland]

It appears to me that Rand isn't really for judicial "activism" in the sense that it is most commonly understood by conservatives, instead he's for judges just actually doing their job under the constitution. I am not sure whether it is wise to attempt to use such a controversial term to describe it. Maybe it plays into his theme of leading the way for the new brand of conservatism to think in new ways about things without sacrificing principles. The response at the event seemed to be very positive. Or maybe it just opens up a bunch of sound-bite attack lines.

[Christian Liberty]

Huh? How is striking down unconstitutional laws unconstitutional? And sorry, but you cannot repeal federal legislation without the judiciary on mere unconstitutional grounds. That's a pipe dream. You can repeal laws regardless of whether or not they are constitutional if there is massive political will, as in a majority in the house and > 2/3rds majority in the senate.

Tell me this. Do you think Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal) should not have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court should have just sat on its hands and said "Stari Decisis. We can't say whether it's constitutional or not. Let's just leave it up to congress."



So you are against the U.S. Supreme Court striking down Obamacare because that set's a bad precedent? Or are you only against the Supreme Court striking down state laws? I don't think you have thought this through. Both striking down state laws and striking down federal laws counts as a form of "judicial activism." That said, the original constitution had this to say regarding the states.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,

Even before the incorporation doctrine, there was wording in the constitution putting some limit on states rights. I'm for states rights and all, but there has always been a limit.

I would say that SCOTUS should overturn unconstitutional Federal laws, but that it doesn't really have any say in state laws.

[specsaregood]

Huh? How is striking down unconstitutional laws unconstitutional? And sorry, but you cannot repeal federal legislation without the judiciary on mere unconstitutional grounds. That's a pipe dream.

@jmdrake, what did you think about his speech and how he framed the topic, history, talking points, etc?

[Southron]

I would say that SCOTUS should overturn unconstitutional Federal laws, but that it doesn't really have any say in state laws.

That was Ron Paul's position.

[jmdrake]

That was Ron Paul's position.

Actually no. While Ron Paul often spoke out against the 1964 Civil Rights act because it affected private business, he publicly praised Brown v. Board of education which is the Supreme Court case that struck down state segregation laws. He did speak out against forced busing and other contrived solutions from D.C. to segregation. But he supported the Supreme Court striking down state laws in that case.

See: http://votesmart.org/public-statemen...n#.VLhjryvF_rg

If Ron Paul had been against Brown v. Board there is no way in hell I would support him.

[Christian Liberty]

Actually no. While Ron Paul often spoke out against the 1964 Civil Rights act because it affected private business, he publicly praised Brown v. Board of education which is the Supreme Court case that struck down state segregation laws. He did speak out against forced busing and other contrived solutions from D.C. to segregation. But he supported the Supreme Court striking down state laws in that case.

See: http://votesmart.org/public-statemen...n#.VLhjryvF_rg

If Ron Paul had been against Brown v. Board there is no way in hell I would support him.

Even discussing Brown v. Board presupposes the legitimacy of public schools. If such institutions must exist, the more local the level that decides how they are run, the better. SCOTUS should not be ruling on state polices at all. Period. The end. That includes both Plessy and Brown...

And no, I don't expect Ron to pick a silly issue like that to defend localism on.

[Southron]

Actually no. While Ron Paul often spoke out against the 1964 Civil Rights act because it affected private business, he publicly praised Brown v. Board of education which is the Supreme Court case that struck down state segregation laws. He did speak out against forced busing and other contrived solutions from D.C. to segregation. But he supported the Supreme Court striking down state laws in that case.

See: http://votesmart.org/public-statemen...n#.VLhjryvF_rg

If Ron Paul had been against Brown v. Board there is no way in hell I would support him.

I wasn't aware that he supported Brown vs Board of education, but it is seems inconsistent with his other statements. He has stated that the incorporation doctrine should be rejected. I recall him not supporting the Supreme Court overturning the Chicago gun ban, and also claiming the Feds had no authority over state eminent domain cases as well. There were people on these forums who were disappointed in his stance on the Chicago gun ban if IIRC.

In Kelo v. City of New London Ron Paul argued, “the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the Kelo case on the grounds that the 5th amendment does not apply to the states.”

[Christian Liberty]

I wasn't aware that he supported Brown vs Board of education, but it is seems inconsistent with his other statements. He has stated that the incorporation doctrine should be rejected. I recall him not supporting the Supreme Court overturning the Chicago gun ban, and him claiming the Feds had no authority over state eminent domain cases as well.

He probably just didn't want to commit political suicide. Really, I haven't even thought about this issue until this conversation came up.

[TaftFan]

The position of Gutzman, Ron, and others:

Some state laws may violate the Constitution and should be overturned. But while some state laws may be against liberty and would be unconstitutional on the federal level, they aren't unconstitutional because they are on the state level.

[Southron]

The position of Gutzman, Ron, and others:

Some state laws may violate the Constitution and should be overturned. But while some state laws may be against liberty and would be unconstitutional on the federal level, they aren't unconstitutional because they are on the state level.

Gutzman is the best modern defender of this school of thought that I know. He is on the Mike Church show quite a bit.

[jmdrake]

@jmdrake, what did you think about his speech and how he framed the topic, history, talking points, etc?

I looked briefly through what you transcribed and I thought the talking points were good. I don't think Rand will be at all hurt by this. Here's what I gleaned:

Rand supports "judicial activism" for having struck down or for striking down:

1. Obamacare
2. States interfering with the right to contract
3. Laws banning birth control
4. State ordered racial segregation

Look at the list. You will be hard pressed to find a conservative who does not eagerly support judicial activism in cases 1 and 2. Now some conservatives are against birth control, but they aren't politically potent anyway. I would add to this list the Supreme Court decision knocking down Chicago's gun ban. (Heller). I also think the Court should have been "activist" in the Kely v. The City Of New London (imminent domain case).

Politically this only helps Rand. What Republican opponent is going to say the Court should not strike down Obamacare? What Republican is going to say New York and Chicago should be allowed to ban guns if they want to? Ben Carson hinted at that and had to back-peddle with a quickness. And in 2015, no serious republican candidate is going to say "You know, I'm against segregation at all, but the states should have been allowed to decide that for themselves."

That last point is very important. Rand is trying very hard to reach minorities. The biggest fear among blacks politically is that somehow the clock will be "turned back" on civil rights. Do I think that's possible in a modern society? No. But I also don't believe that segregation would have ended at anywhere near the pace it did without federal intervention. I'm all for "laboratories of democracy " and "voting with your feet." But in the cases of Tulsa Oklahoma, Rosewood Florida and Forsythe Co. Georgia, the racists were wanting black to "vote with their feet." It was ethnic cleansing American style. That's one "democracy experiment" I can do without thank you very much.

[Crashland]

The position of Gutzman, Ron, and others:

Some state laws may violate the Constitution and should be overturned. But while some state laws may be against liberty and would be unconstitutional on the federal level, they aren't unconstitutional because they are on the state level.

I would agree, although if a state has a constitution or if a locality has a charter that allows the state or local government to violate the bill of rights, that in itself is a bit of a problem. In principle I suppose the local governments have the right to do that, but practically speaking I can't honestly say I have an objection when the federal courts step on it.

[jmdrake]

I wasn't aware that he supported Brown vs Board of education, but it is seems inconsistent with his other statements. He has stated that the incorporation doctrine should be rejected. I recall him not supporting the Supreme Court overturning the Chicago gun ban, and also claiming the Feds had no authority over state eminent domain cases as well. There were people on these forums who were disappointed in his stance on the Chicago gun ban if IIRC.

In Kelo v. City of New London Ron Paul argued, “the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the Kelo case on the grounds that the 5th amendment does not apply to the states.”

And I disagree with Ron on those positions, but I see them fundamentally different from Brown v. Board. Keep in mind that segregation was against an entire group of people with the purpose of rendering them impotent politically, educationally, economically and socially. Do you realize that Kentucky passed a law that forced a private integrated university to segregate? If there is a gun ban the people who don't like the ban can at least vote against the politicians. But when even the vote is systematically suppressed by the state, what recourse is there?

[jmdrake]

The position of Gutzman, Ron, and others:

Some state laws may violate the Constitution and should be overturned. But while some state laws may be against liberty and would be unconstitutional on the federal level, they aren't unconstitutional because they are on the state level.

And I can live with ^that. For instance I think drug laws should be entirely deided at the state level. I would be against the Supreme Court saying states had to legalize drugs. But the federal drug ban is totally unconstitutional. I think drug laws are a perfect way to talk to (some) on the left regarding state's rights.

[Jeremy]

Disturbing.

Edit. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I just assumed he agreed with Ron but I did a little research. Apparently, Rand has always differed from Ron on the meaning of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.

Rand is talking about with the "double security" principle that James Madison explained in the Federalist Papers. Is that bad?

[TommyJeff]

I looked at the libertarian law blogs to see what their thought about this. Rand's view is the consensus view among libertarian law professors.

Libertarian law blogs? I like the sound of that. Would you share some links please?